What did it all started with?

[renniks]

Mathematics, even without the numbers, still exists, as a set of axioms or patterns, that, to me, indicate design, etc, and therefore, also an original designer or programmer or creator, etc...

And I think there is a very, very good reason why we do use math, or can use math, for just about "anything/everything", etc...

This is in my signature, but I'm going to put it here:

"Order/Patterns/Laws (especially mathematical ones) are (direct) evidence of design."

And therefore an original designer, etc, etc, etc...

To me anyway...

God Bless!

The way I understand it, they were able to predict what would be found in the universe mathematically before they found it. What is it about our brains that we know this is how things work unless our brains are part of the design?

 

[Neogaia777]

The way I understand it, they were able to predict what would be found in the universe mathematically before they found it. What is it about our brains that we know this is how things work unless our brains are part of the design?

It is all part of the design...

The stuff our brains are made out of, and they way they work, even our thoughts/feelings, etc, are all numbered, and can all be figured out and/or known/predicted mathematically, etc...

And maybe someday, if we ever figure out the "theory of everything", etc, we will understand how it is all unified and/or connected on all levels interconnectedly, etc...

It is my belief that God did this or made it this way, so we could all get just a small taste of what it might be like to be like Him one day maybe, etc...

Know what and like He knows, or always already knew, etc...

Don't really know how far we'll get though until either He comes back or the sin issue is resolved though, etc...

God Bless!

 

[dlamberth]

God created me in my mother's womb. Yes, he use already existing material, but life in itself isn't some force able to do whatever it pleases. That's like saying if I create a computer capable of reproducing, the computer itself is a creator.

There's a difference between a computer and life. Life isn't a computer. It's Life itSelf that created you. As we look around at the diversity of life forms, both past and present, with its various consciousness and niches, yes Life has the capacity to create an infinite variety of life forms.

 

[Neogaia777]

Life is part of program God created and/or made, made to build on itself and self-create, or at least perpetuate itself, etc, and become more and more complex as it grows and/or evolves, or as time flows and/or goes on, etc...

And everything is also numbers also, etc, or has a pattern or program and/or design that is mathematical, and nothing is done on or by accident and everything is/was done on purpose, with a purpose, etc, and all with a very specific, especially in the end, very end goal ultimate purpose, etc...

God Bless!

 

[renniks]

It's Life itSelf that created you.

I look around and I see the handiwork of a loving Creator everywhere. Life isn't an intelligent entity capable of that.

 

[dlamberth]

I look around and I see the handiwork of a loving Creator everywhere. Life isn't an intelligent entity capable of that.

Life is creative. Life isn't static, it's dynamic with infinite potential in forms and consciousness.

 

[renniks]

No God is creative. Whose life? Humans are creative. Life has no inherent intelligence. According to evolution theory it only changes randomly. That's actually built in adaptation. You talk as if life were an entity in itself.

Life is creative. Life isn't static, it's dynamic with infinite potential in forms and consciousness.

 

[dlamberth]

No God is creative. Whose life? Humans are creative. Life has no inherent intelligence. According to evolution theory it only changes randomly. That's actually built in adaptation. You talk as if life were an entity in itself.

Again, life is Creative. It's in it's Creativity is where it's intelligence sits. Life is the very essence of this Creation, it's not a separate entity, it's whole and united and One with all that there is. It's not at all like the separate entity sitting apart from this Creation that you see in a controlling judgmental God.

 

[Neogaia777]

Life is not a separate creation/entity/intelligence from the rest of this program/creation/entity/intelligence, etc, and in and of itself, and itself only, may not be all that intelligent apart from the intelligence that it indicates, or that it points to/at, or that it is indicative of, or the One who originally programmed and/or made it and/or created it, etc...

But the God/One I speak of here, I don't know if very many really truly know yet, etc...

God Bless!

 

[renniks]

Again, life is Creative. It's in it's Creativity is where it's intelligence sits. Life is the very essence of this Creation, it's not a separate entity, it's whole and united and One with all that there is. It's not at all like the separate entity sitting apart from this Creation that you see in a controlling judgmental God.

Life isn't even a entity. This all sounds very new age, and not scientific at all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fact that there are laws of nature is the evidence.

So I say the laws of nature have always been what they are, and your logic implies that (unless you're using a special pleading fallacy) the creator you describe must also have had a cause, e.g. another creator, which must also have had a cause, and so on ad infinitum; but if your creator doesn't need a cause, then neither do the laws of nature.

How is your creator idea a better explanation for the fact of the laws of nature than mine? If nothing else, it fails Occam's razor where mine doesn't...

 

[renniks]

So I say the laws of nature have always been what they are,

Nothing in nature is static. But you are claiming what? That the universe always existed in its present form? That's not very scientific of you

 

[Hans Blaster]

And I thought Henri Poincare was the father of Chaos theory not Satan.
Guess the history books will have to be rewritten.
What about the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics; did Beelzebub come up with the theory?

No, that was Schrödinger. (Though Maxwell, a founder of statistical mechanics, did have a demon.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing in nature is static. But you are claiming what? That the universe always existed in its present form? That's not very scientific of you

I'm countering your suggestion of a creator first cause with the suggestion that the universe has always existed (though obviously not in its present form, which is constantly changing) with the same fundamental laws (from which our everyday natural laws are emergent).

What makes you think that's 'not very scientific'? Plenty of eminent physicists and cosmologists think it's a possible explanation.

 

[renniks]

I'm countering your suggestion of a creator first cause with the suggestion that the universe has always existed (though obviously not in its present form, which is constantly changing) with the same fundamental laws (from which our everyday natural laws are emergent).

What makes you think that's 'not very scientific'? Plenty of eminent physicists and cosmologists think it's a possible explanation.

So you have eternal matter. That you believe in by faith. I'm not seeing the logic.

 

[Shemjaza]

So you have eternal matter. That you believe in by faith. I'm not seeing the logic.

Except that a physical universe full if indestructible matter/energy is already in evidence. Extra-universal sources of creation are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't have scientific laws without someONE creating those laws. Without a first cause, nothing would exist.

Scientific laws only describe nature. You are conflating human laws with scientific ones. They are two different things. Scientific laws are descriptive and no one has ever shown a need for an author. Human laws are proscriptive and it is well understood why we have authors of those.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have eternal matter. That you believe in by faith. I'm not seeing the logic.

You are not seeing the logic, that is clear. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of evidence.

 

[Strathos]

From a purely scientific perspective, we simply don't know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you have eternal matter. That you believe in by faith. I'm not seeing the logic.

I don't believe it, I don't know the answer - but I'm suggesting it as a simpler alternative to positing an inexplicable creator. IOW I think it's a better hypothesis, by reasonable criteria for a good explanation.